To think people are going to have to be inconvenienced to actually stop climate change?

[Confrontayshunme]

A road near our home was closed to create a Low Traffic Neighbourhood during the first lockdown. Children at the local junior and high schools have benefitted hugely in road safety, the cycle and scooter racks were overflowing and the pollution was measured recently as 40% less (in an area with 3 schools).

And yet they reopened the road because enough drivers wanted to save 10 minutes in the morning. The day after it reopened, half of the bikes and scooters were gone due to safety concerns. Even my coworker who said it made her cycle to work easier and safer was hugely relieved that she doesn't have to go an extra 10 minutes out of her way when driving.

Anyway, I just despair for the planet if adults and people riding in heated, air conditioned, comfortable, waterproof music players can't possibly leave the house 10 minutes earlier to allow our community's children just one intersection's worth of safety and convenience. Plus, the level of pollution driving our children all these miles (when they could be exercising or improving their mental health) inside a car shortens their lives so there isn't any time saved overall anyway!

And before the pile on commences, I realise many people are not able to use alternate transport or active travel due to physical disability or huge distances and I wouldn't include them in this.

I moved to Holland last year and the difference with the UK is astonishing. We don't need a car here, everything is done on bike, public transport and very occasionally we use a car sharing scheme car.

They have made several streets around here low traffic and it is actually faster for me to cycle to the train station than take a car.

This could be done in the UK but it requires a significant cultural shift.

Oh and one thing you see over here a lot is adapted (electrical) bikes for people with a disability. It means they have a lot more freedom of movement than if they had to rely on public transport.

Depends if the solutions that cause the inconvenience actually work.

Low traffic zones in UK cities don't solve problems because they don't take cars off the road, they just move the congestion to other parts of the city and often make the air quality worse in those locations too.

People can also crow about the Netherlands all they like, but, having worked there extensively then it is a really mixed bag in my opinion. Yes, there are great areas for bikes and pedestrians and good public transport links but there is also horrendous traffic with long standing traffic jams and their associated air pollution as well. It is not a car free paradise as some people in the UK like to make out.

There are plenty of things we should be doing such as installing insulation, renewable heating, EV charging infrastructure, public transport investment, continuing to decarbonise the grid, etc. All of which will all have more impact that shutting off a few roads.

No it's not a car free paradise. But what works so well for our family is that we personally do not need a car whereas we never had that option in the UK.

If it was taking drivers another ten minutes in the morning, you can bet that it was taking people who rely upon public transport another 45 minutes to an hour.

All those drivers taken an extra 10 minutes obviously had to drive a different route. So it's ok if all the traffic is directed to somewhere else to become someone else's problem, but it's awful when it happens in your street? Those who were affected by the diversion are probably heaving a sigh of relief at not having to deal with all the extra traffic.

I spent 20 years living in The Netherlands - which, for the uninitiated is NOT the same as “Holland”.

Public transport and bicycles may work in the “randstad” - but to equate that to “lazy Brits” is unfair when the randstad is 1) flat and 2) has the public transport options of London.

Oh, and your employer covers your train ticket.

Op I agree. Trying to do zero waste/recycle walk etc as much as possible. Yes, big companies do account for the majority of the damage. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try our hardest too.

The idea is that drivers are forced to use the main routes leaving more residential areas safer

Yes more traffic on the main routes that are meant to have it

And making it easier for people to leave the car behind -

if done correctly you end up with fewer cars on the main road also because you have quieter safer options for none car users

20% of car journeys are under 1 mile -there and back you would still not have done 10000 steps

38% of journeys under 2 miles

These are journeys which could help ease congestion and improve health if we could get people walking and cycling more

bordermidgebite where is your data from?

To do the school run for my primary children as one of the parents who live the furthest away I don’t hit 10,000 steps till after I’ve walked there, walked back, done some shopping and some housework.

My dh could drive it there and back in 10minutes. Parents who live two streets away drive the school run. So I’m going to guess the pp is correct.

My dh drives 10miles on country roads with no public transport to work and the same back each day. His dad drives the 30 seconds from his house to the local Tesco and back.

I used this link to double check my ( flaky) memory

www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/cycling-is-not-practical-for-the-transportation-or-commuting-needs-of-most-people

But I think the ONS collect such data

They’ve suggested a low traffic neighbourhood here. It will force cars to go one of three ways, which are already congested. All it will cause is hundreds of stationary queuing cars idling with there engines on and will increase pollution.

bordermidgebite thank you.

Some of our descendants will survive many won’t. Been listening to ancient history books most of the population in my area were wiped out around 486 by bubonic plague and climate change a volcano meant there were basically no seasons for 3 years and all their crops failed. Our mistake is assuming our cushy lives and entitlement to survive will continue- it won’t.

It's tricky I would like to walk more but I have so little time between getting the kids to breakfast club and then needing to be at work vice versa at end of the day, plus I travel for work often so need car to do that. The reason my time is tight is to fit as many work hours in as possible to make money that we need to live on. I don't know what the answer is in sure it's that way for many

That's why I think a societal shift is needed - where I wonder if universal income doesn't actually have a place

It will be much more like few people having cars at all, most people staying very close to home through their life, having one sweter and two outfits and probably no electronic gadgets. Something much closer to the expectations in terms of travel and property ownership that people had pre-1950.

This is me. Well except I do have a 2014 second hand laptop because the internet is pretty essential these days.

This isn't a smug post.

It's because I'm poor.

Many people on benefits or on a really low income live just like me. It baffles me how it's unfathomable to most on MN.

If you act now there is no need to imagine a future within travel and no electronic gadgets

I rarely buy new clothes, often my sister gives me her old stuff.

The bus is comparatively expensive on benefits (£4.50 when on an income of £70 a week is expensive).

I walk everywhere that is under 4 miles or so each way.

I guess it's inadvertently good for the planet!!

OP your attitude is exactly why climate change initiatives fail.
People go for the low hanging fruit like low traffic zones and encouraging cycles. Which area easy to implement, cheap, but inconvenience people. And then blame the public for being selfish.
The expensive stuff that people would actually use (Like better public transport) isn't done.

How do you know that cycles in other areas weren't inconvenienced as a result of traffic being pushed there?

Also electric scooters are illegal in the UK
www.halfords.com/cycling/advice/are-electric-scooters-legal.html

Most people I know in London don't own cars, there are congestion charges, lots of zones for fines etc etc but fair enough - plenty of ways to get around!

@bordermidgebite

20% of car journeys are under 1 mile -there and back you would still not have done 10000 steps

38% of journeys under 2 miles

These are journeys which could help ease congestion and improve health if we could get people walking and cycling more

This is true but doesn't really take into account our ageing (and therefore less likely to be able to manage this) population or the way that life has been set up such than an extra 'just 15 minutes' cannot be accommodated. Combine that things such as nearest supermarkets not being a million miles away but being unable to carry everything you've bought to/ from the bus stop and the fact that many people do not have the money to buy or space to store a bike and we can see that the infrastructure of our current society does not easily support these journeys being done by bike/ legs rather than car.

Our aging population is suffering from a lose it because we don't use it ( in the main) - the cost of inactivity to our health service is immense

We actually use the car once every 3 weeks shopping and once a week carry meat milk and veg up the hill.

We won't be able to do it forever, but it's only in the last year or so that it's become too much for my mother

Yes I have repeatedly said that we need to be able to have the time in our lives to live a more relaxed and healthier lifestyle - that is the trap we are in, working so hard to make ends meet that our health and planet are both suffering , yet somehow no one can devise a way out . We got a man on the moon but poison our kids with fumes and condemn our adults to diabetes etc